Paul Michell

The applicant sought a court order to appoint an arbitrator under a dispute resolution clause in a shared ownership agreement for an antique double bass.

The respondent, who resides in the Netherlands, failed to engage in the selection of a mediator or arbitrator.

The court found that the Arbitration Act, 1991 applied, as the agreement was not commercial in nature.

The court granted the application and appointed the applicant's proposed arbitrator, awarding costs to the applicant.

The Court dismissed an appeal challenging a personal oppression order against a corporate director under s. 241(3) of the Canada Business Corporations Act.

It reaffirmed a two-pronged framework requiring that oppressive conduct be attributable to the director and that personal liability be fit in all the circumstances.

The Court identified fairness, narrow tailoring to rectify oppression, vindication of reasonable stakeholder expectations, and consistency with the broader corporate law context as guiding principles.

On the facts, the director’s lead role in the non-conversion decision and personal benefit through increased corporate control supported personal liability, and the pleadings were sufficient to ground that remedy.

The plaintiffs moved to add Chevron Canada Capital Company (CCCC) as a party defendant to their action seeking to enforce an Ecuadorian judgment against Chevron Corporation.

The court dismissed the motion, finding that the proposed amendment was not legally tenable and disclosed no cause of action against CCCC, as the court had previously ruled that Chevron Canada's corporate veil could not be pierced.

Furthermore, the court found no basis for jurisdiction over CCCC, a Nova Scotia company with no assets or operations in Ontario, and noted that Rule 17.02(o) regarding necessary parties had been repealed.

Following the dismissal of a motion to remove the respondent's counsel in a family law proceeding, the respondent sought costs of $88,729.26 on a substantial indemnity basis.

The moving parties argued the quantum was unreasonable and sought to have costs fixed at $30,000 payable in the cause.

The court found the respondent's counsel's hours and rates to be somewhat excessive compared to the moving parties' counsel, but acknowledged the importance of the motion.

The court fixed costs at $50,000, payable forthwith, rejecting the moving parties' argument that payment should be deferred until the equalization payment was determined.

The parties separated in 1999 after a 17-year marriage.

Following the wife's death in 2011, her estate obtained a summary judgment order declaring that all property owned by either party at separation was co-owned equally and held in trust.

At trial to determine the equalization payment, the court rejected both experts' extreme interpretations of the summary judgment order.

The court found the order did not impose retroactive trust obligations that would penalize post-separation consumption or require compounding interest.

The court also determined that substantial bonuses paid to the husband by his company post-separation were remuneration for his active management services, not shareholder distributions, and thus were not subject to equal division.

After valuing the respective assets, the court ordered the husband to pay the estate an equalization payment of $7,932,647.50.

In CCAA proceedings involving the Nortel group, the joint administrators of certain European, Middle Eastern, and African debtor entities brought a motion under Rule 30.10 of the Rules of Civil Procedure seeking production of documents from a non‑party accounting firm relating to transfer pricing arrangements and intellectual property development.

The court reviewed the governing principles for non‑party production, including the requirement that such orders be granted only in exceptional circumstances and where it would be unfair to require the moving party to proceed to trial without the documents.

The court found that many of the requested documents had already been communicated to the client and were likely produced through existing discovery processes.

For documents not communicated to the client, the moving party failed to demonstrate their importance or any evidentiary gap justifying exceptional production.

The court concluded that proceeding to trial without the requested materials would not be unfair and dismissed the motion with costs.

A receiver was appointed over a fraudulent investment scheme where the deposits of 24 investors were commingled.

The receiver sought directions on how to distribute the remaining funds, which had a significant shortfall.

One group of investors argued for a pro rata distribution based on original contributions, while another argued for the Lowest Intermediate Balance Rule (LIBR).

The court held that LIBR is the general rule for resolving competing claims to commingled funds unless it is unworkable.

Finding that the receiver could practically calculate the LIBR distributions, the court ordered the funds to be distributed according to LIBR.

The applicants sought an order under s. 46 of the Arbitration Act, 1991 setting aside an arbitral award.

They argued that the arbitral tribunal exceeded its jurisdiction by determining whether a professional services agreement had been terminated for cause and that the tribunal breached procedural fairness by failing to address a claim raised in a counter-complaint.

The court held that the tribunal had already determined its jurisdiction in a prior award that was not appealed and that the applicants had waived any objection by participating in the arbitration on that basis.

The court further found the tribunal’s reasons intelligible and sufficient, rejecting the allegation of a breach of natural justice.

The application to set aside the award was dismissed and the related application to recognize and enforce the award was granted.